Arab diplomat: Bombing Iran less costly in the long run

posted at 10:55 am on July 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

While Western nations debate over the finer points of sanctions to dissuade Iran from its pursuit of nuclear weapons, the neighbors of the Iranian mullahcracy are making much more practical calculations. The ambassador from the United Arab Emirates shocked his audience yesterday by openly calling for military strikes on Iranian targets if sanctions do not reverse the mullahcracy’s course in the short term. Yousef al-Otaiba said that talk of “containment and deterrence” makes him nervous, given the 30-year history of futility of such policies:

In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran‘s nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country’s quest for nuclear weapons.

“I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” Mr. al-Otaiba said. “I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.”

“If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclearIran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.“

Otaiba made a more telling point, however, in attacking the fundamental rationale for the sanctions:

The ambassador also said that “talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous.”

He said Iran has not been deterred from supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah now, when it doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal. So why, he asked rhetorically, would Iran be more cautious in its support for terrorism if it did.

“Why should I be led to believe that deterrence and containment will work?” he asked.

Otaiba is right. That policy has led us to where we are today, with the Iranian regime entrenched behind a military police state and well on their way to acquiring weapons of mass destruction. They already have the means to deliver them, if they choose to do so in open military conflict. However, they would more likely use their proxy terrorist armies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to park a nuke in Tel Aviv in order to claim deniability. The ongoing existence of both forces, which rely on Iranian funding and direction, is another plague that the policies of deterrence and containment have rendered unto the region.

However, military action against Iran is much more difficult than it was against Iraq or Afghanistan. Iran is three times the size of Iraq in mainly mountainous territory. The Iranians have no doubt dispersed their nuclear efforts to keep a single strike or even a series of them from completely destroying those facilities. Despite our presence in the Gulf, those factors — plus the fact that Iran has not had to fight a war for a few decades and so has more strength than Saddam Hussein had in either conflict with the US — means successful strikes that would halt their nuclear progress and disable the Revolutionary Guard would be hard to accomplish, dangerous to try, and likely would cost the West a great deal of nascent sympathy among Iranian democracy activists unless it also succeeded in decapitating the mullahcracy and the military leadership. That would be akin to drawing two cards to an inside straight flush.

Otaiba understands these risks, though, and accepts the costs. As he told the startled policymakers in the audience, “The United States may be able to live with it [a nuclear Iran]. We can’t.” Neither can the other Arab states, not without a nuclear arms race that would raise the risk of putting nukes in the hands of Islamist extremists to an almost-certainty. The US cannot live with that outcome, either.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

So says the oilman with a stake in price inflation. Bombing Iran is the dumbest thing America can do. If the Israelis and Gulf Arabs feel threatened, then they have the nukes and combined airspace to make this happen. We don’t have the money or political will to succeed in such a task- and it would shoot Obama’s “smart power” approach to hell.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton: ‘Arab Countries Would Support Attack On Iran’

“The Obama Administration does not manifestly understand,” noted Bolton, that “an Israeli attack against the Iranian nuclear program would be supported in the Arab world. It would be supported by the Arab states in the Persian Gulf region. It would be supported by Egypt and others who don’t want Iran to have nuclear we…apons any more than the Israelis do.” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37927

I have to ask the obvious: If the UAE and other arab nations can not live with a nuclear Iran, then why do they not initiate and fund a covert operation aimed at destabilizing and toppling the mullahcracy from within? This is the most effective method for ending the nuclear issue, and further repercussions.

These guys’ forefathers lived through times similar to the Spartans in ‘300’ so they know who they’re dealing with. Regardless of their political rhetoric, they know the Jews never tried to conquer them.

Not really. The UAE aren’t one tiny bit more, or less, sane than they have been. They’ve always known this, but they felt secure sitting in the corner and backbiting while America protected their interests – and those of everyone else in the world.

The only reason they are publically saying this now is because they see how catastrophically America has dropped the ball.

Now if Obama saw that Muslims want him to do this and then TOOK ACTION, then that would be a good sign. But there’s no way to know whether his bias toward the greater Islamic Empire will win out over his bias toward ineptitude.

If Israel – or anyone else in that region – has to step in and try to do this without US backing, then that whole area will erupt in a potentially drawn-out war. And then we can kiss whatever is left of the world’s economy goodby.

Let them slay their own dragons. The Arabs, in typical fashion, want someone else to slay the dragon; then, after it is slain, they will jump up and beat their heads and ululate and chant “death to America! death to Israel!”

Time for them to grow a pair and fight for themselves instead of using homicide bombers in a proxy war.

That’s a nice.
HOWEVER, for the statement to have any real meaning, the UAE Ambassador needs to specify exactly WHO exactly he is ok with bombing Iran. Of course he’d be ok with an Arab country doing it, but none of them have that capability.
He needs be able say to “I’m ok with the U.S. or Israel bombing Iran”, or this story isn’t as big a deal as many here seem to think it is.
I’m still pessimistic that there would be Arab world support if even just the U.S. was to execute a bombing mission. If Arab politicians believe it, then SAY OUR NAME!!!

China’s going capitalist while the US goes socialist, Arabs are more in tune with Republican foreign policy than Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy, damn, Alice, Wonderland turly is a bizzaro world.

I’m still pessimistic that there would be Arab world support if even just the U.S. was to execute a bombing mission. If Arab politicians believe it, then SAY OUR NAME!!!

HDFOB on July 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Why do we care if the Arabs vocalize support for the mission? As long as they don’t do anything violent, they can say whatever they want. Muslim RADICALS in their countries don’t like us now, and won’t like us regardless of whether we bomb Iran or not.

It would be difficult to capture Iran, or to invade it….but it would be relatively easy to reduce it. As a petroleum producing state, it is quite ironic to note that it only has one refinery of its own and normally has to import gasoline. Hit the refinery, the ports, rail lines, bridges and passes, and some fuel depots, and Iran would quickly run out of fuel.

Its army and navy, fearsome though they might be, could do little if they could not be moved into position or resupplied. Its nuclear centrifuges wouldn’t twirl themselves. The eighteen and a half million people living in Tehran are probably unsupportable without truck transport and many millions would have to leave.

The problem with this, of course, is that it would be a humanitarian catastrophe that would play out over weeks in particularly telegenic ways. It’s much easier to go for another round of golf and wait for Tel Aviv to get nuked.

However, military action against Iran is much more difficult than it was against Iraq or Afghanistan

Let’s face it, military action anywhere is not just difficult, it’s pretty much impossible these days.

Maybe it’s just impossible in the Middle East, but when we go in with the type of ROEs that are in place, it’s best not to go in at all.

War sucks, and very few leaders in the past 100 years know how to do it well. You get in, do whatever you have to do and get out quickly.

Best example I can think of is Patton. People still say he was a lousy general because he was reckless and didn’t car about his men, blah, blah… That is total BS. He knew that you needed to hit the enemy, hot them hard and not let up. That is how you win AND keep more of your own troops alive.

We have the strength, technology and training but not the willpower to win. From not going after the enemy in Cambodia, not not going after them in a mosque (Oh, we can’t blow it up, they will be mad!) we should stay out of the business of fighting wars until we decide to win.

I know I can’t be the only one thinking, “Don’t trust these guys. They are trying to leave Israel vulnerable.

ynot4tony2 on July 7, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Exactly! i keep saying this, and getting called a truther for it, but the Sunnis WANT this war to happen. They WANT the jews and shias to kill each other. And they also know how to fan the flames and extort whatever they want out of their “allies” once it all gets started.

I dobut it. Iran scares them, too. Iraq scared them as well, that’s why they cooperated (more the first time around).

This is coming from the ruling parties of these countries, they just want to make sure oil money keeps flowing in and they stay in power. They are living well and that includes the decadence of the west. They just want stability, to keep their “peasants” complacent and fund a little Islamic terror here and there to keep them busy. Not enough to get their hands really dirty though, and thus invite a cruise missile into their palatial residence(s).

Although the Saudis seem to get away with getting their hands pretty dirty. Someday the whole truth of that will be revealed, I wonder if I’ll still be alive to read it.

As far as testicular fortitude in U.S. Presidents is concerned, Bush 43 had some, but he was a pale immitation of Ronaldus Magnus. Getting up and leaving Gorby at the table in Reykjavik after Gorby didn’t initially agree to SDI took enormous testicular fortitude. Reagan knew what he was doing.

Gorby called Reagan a dinosaur, he was just jealous of his dinosaur sized balls.

I’m having mixed reactions. Nice to have someone voice this, but I noted…

there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what

This is the same Dubai U.A.E. country that people freaked out about having ship ports in the U.S. (They already did) This country is not an enemy. Rush said it was stupid to stop them but we freaked out.

Next point of business:

I am certain Obama has threatened Israel with disruption of spare airplane and military parts and the shutting down of the U.S. X-band radar set up in Israel if they attack. I wouldn’t be surprised if he said our planes would shoot them down if they cross Iraqi airspace too. (Hopefully our Generals wouldn’t follow that order, but he may have said it to scare them).

The man is not a friend to Israel, or apparently the world for that matter. I don’t think anyone knows how bad that meeting at the White House really was.

If Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia (and other Arab nations) will be hell-bent on acquiring nukes of their own, and given their financial resources, will likely succeed in arming themselves in record time.

Do we really want a bunch of fundamentalist Islamic states bristling with nuclear weapons?

This is another one of those “lesser of evils” choices, in which the greater evil could very well lead to an apocalyptic conclusion.

I have to ask the obvious: If the UAE and other arab nations can not live with a nuclear Iran, then why do they not initiate and fund a covert operation aimed at destabilizing and toppling the mullahcracy from within?
paulsur on July 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Because being phenomenally wealthy doesn’t stop them from being phenomenally incompetent.

As a nation/group, their only significant ‘skill’ is spending money to buy the goods and services they are incapable of providing for themselves, i.e. more or less everything.

“The United States may be able to live with it [a nuclear Iran]. We can’t.”

Where are your armies, Mr. Otaiba? Some may see the US as the world’s cop, but we don’t do anyone’s dirty work. How about a compromise? You provide the ground troops and we’ll provide naval and air support. Deal?

So says the oilman with a stake in price inflation. Bombing Iran is the dumbest thing America can do. If the Israelis and Gulf Arabs feel threatened, then they have the nukes and combined airspace to make this happen. We don’t have the money or political will to succeed in such a task- and it would shoot Obama’s “smart power” approach to hell.

abobo on July 7, 2010 at 11:01 AM

1. Israel can do a single strike but lacks the ability to carry out sustained operations that will be needed to completely eliminate the nuclear threat for now. Ditto for Iran’s neighbors. Such a strike also will lead to missile exchanges between Israel and Iran that could escalate to chemical or nuclear exchanges.

2. Only two powers possess the ability to carry out large scale sustained air operations – us and Russia.

3. We need to do it soon in conjunction with a crackdown on Islamofacists in arab countries.

4. Never use the words “Obama” and “smart” in the same sentence. They never mix.

In case you haven’t noticed, Yousef, the two endless conflict we’re embroiled in already have our armed forces strained and our civilian economy on the brink of collapse. To start a third war in Iran would also be a far taller order from the get-go; Iran actually has a semblance of a military and is much bigger. We will NOT be able to steamroll them like we have Iraq & A$$crackistan. And if we did somehow toss the mad mullahs off the throne, without wrecking the world’s biggest oil supply in the process (or them self-destructing it a la Saddam Hussein) just what would we get? Another Middle Eastern protectorate with a thin veil of democracy over an Islamic theocracy?!

In a nutshell…fight your own battles, you bunch of backbiting camelf*ckers!

I have to ask the obvious: If the UAE and other arab nations can not live with a nuclear Iran, then why do they not initiate and fund a covert operation aimed at destabilizing and toppling the mullahcracy from within? This is the most effective method for ending the nuclear issue, and further repercussions.

paulsur on July 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

I agree. Seriously, why don’t the U.A.E., Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim states just have a joint operation and fly in and deal with Iran.

What the U.A.E. is really saying that they’re cowards and they want someone else to do their dirty work.

I say the U.S. and Israel provide military intelligence and some cash, but the Arab nations do the dirty work.

If Israel – or anyone else in that region – has to step in and try to do this without US backing, then that whole area will erupt in a potentially drawn-out war. And then we can kiss whatever is left of the world’s economy goodby.

We do have a lot of firepower in the Gulf right now. Iran might think Obama won’t use it, but he had to okay it to be sent there. Also the temporary lovefest with Bibi might be mostly to influence my fellow so-smart-they-are-dumb Jewish voters in November, but maybe also Obama wants to be in the loop of whatever Israel is planning.

Wowzers. An Arab dude has more bawlz than our president. History in the making, kids.

gryphon202 on July 7, 2010 at 11:42 A

M

:-) they don’t have a choice there, but to have ‘bawlz’ :-) (or grow them if missing :-) he stated pretty clearly there. due to geography and super-power status the US can afford to pretend for a while that it can’t be bothered by the Iranian regime and their nukes in the making, but the smaller Arab nations in the region don’t enjoy the ‘sit and watch’ privilege.